I do know plenty of people who claim that Clinton was actually to the right of where Bush during his administration and others who claim that Clinton was a Republican in disguise. As far as I can see the only difference between the two parties is which specific special interests they consider in their base. They take roughly equal money from corporations each election. If that's the only basis for a claim of Fascism, they're both guilty.

"Rev. Lang is a minister in another main-line church. Just because the right-wing fundies are louder, claim to speak for all Christians, and get more press, doesn't mean that they are in the majority."

Rev. Lang is a member of the same denomination as Bush and I are, but on the extreme left wing of it. His article is factually wrong in a number of cases and mixes apples and oranges to damn Bush with criticisms that might be just but have nothing to do with Bush. For example Lang writes: "First and most basic is that Dominion Theology wants to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern according to a very literal and peculiar interpretation of Biblical law." The problem is, there's no trace of this theology in anything Bush has done or said. Bush is no more a fundamentalist than Lang is, nor despite the Reverend's claims, has Bush ever claimed to speak for all Christians. As I've posted in the past, none of Bush's public pronouncements have waivers the slightest bit from any our mutual denomination's core doctrine or social principles, the ones Rev. Lang has sworn to uphold. I have them in writing here in front of me. Lang has a political agenda and is not speaking for our church. If he's calling Bush a Christian Fascist, he's calling all of us in the center of Christianity Fascists.

"And as far as treading the road toward fascism, of course there are differences between the way we are headed and the way Germany went...

Yes, but just because politics in the US have taken a temporary swerved to the right doesn't mean that what you see will lead to Fascism. It certainly sure doesn't support the claim today. Making the claim is pure demogogary.

"And just because someone doesn't consider himself to be a fascist doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't one!"

Neither does calling someone a Fascist make him one, especially on such flimsy pretexts.